Before I intro this morning’s segment on America’s Third Watch, I want to point out the overt and deliberate attack on innocent Israelis in Jerusalem last Thursday by Hamas terrorists. This attack resulted in the murders of six people and the severe injury of five more.
I warned of this in the run-up to the fake ceasefire. I warned that the cessation of hostilities was not as it appeared and, in fact, was a hudna: a perceived ceasefire that gives jihadis (and that’s what Hamas is, a group of jihadis) an opportunity to regroup, re-arm, re-strategize, and re-deploy.
We witnessed the end of that short hudna with the murders in Jerusalem.
The West – and especially those pro-Hamas/Palestinian protesters who exist in the intellectual void of college campuses and radical urban assemblies – have completely failed to understand the Hamas mindset.
As Professor Denis McEoin, the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University, wrote at MEForum.org:
“The jihad is waged against the entire world, but Israel has become its focus. Since the jihad is deemed unending, and since Israel is going to stay, there will be no end to the religiously inspired struggle. The Hamas covenant, for example, is unequivocal: ‘There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.’
“The best that the international community can hope to achieve is a political solution, but this cannot occur unless a way is found not only to control the violent tendencies of the extremists but also to rework Muslim theology and social thought. There is no Muslim equivalent to Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist Judaism. Almost all the great Muslim thinkers of the last century have been deeply conservative.
“For Muslims, the challenge is to move from a worldview that sees all other religions and all non-Muslim people as inferior, Satanic, ignorant, and subject to Muslim conquest to one that coheres more closely with modern thinking in Europe, the Americas, and the Far East, where there is competition between nations and corporations, but where religious hatred is increasingly relegated to the history books. Others may have to abandon similar prejudices, but the extent of Islamic terrorism, its link to the provisions of the Shari'a, and the gulf between Islamic thinking on human rights and the norms of the original Declaration of Human Rights justify concentration on Islamic intolerance as a special problem. It is time for leaders to emerge within the Muslim world capable of guiding their people towards peace and humanity….
“However, it is difficult to see how Israel or the West can have confidence in Hamas's long-term aims. Its position suggests a wholesale rejection of any mediated, peaceful resolution of the conflict.”
Bottom line, Hamas and those who are of the devout jihadi mindset do not want peace with Israel. They want Israel – and the whole of the Jewish people anywhere and everywhere – not to exist. And the fact that the last election in Gaza resulted in the Palestinians voting overwhelmingly for a Hamas-run government, well, that is a statement that cannot be ignored.
Now on to the dumpster fire that was Sean Hannity’s Great Red State – blue State debate.
I don’t know of a junior high school debate team member who would have called what took place last night a “debate.” No debating took place. In fact, no issue juxtaposition was executed except for talking point bravado. The people, the consumers, the viewers learned nothing but that our politicians literally hate each other.
The idea of having a debate has always been a good one. But with the introduction of spin doctors, Madison Avenue marketers, and the slash-and-burn, win-at-all-cost ideology of Saul Alinsky, politicians cannot be trusted to engage civilly in debate. They are incapable because they lust for power.
Hannity had a chance to produce something significant but his guests betrayed his intent. And that’s something the Governors have to be held responsible for.
In the future, and I mention this at the beginning of the segment, the American people – as well as the networks and the candidates – would be better served if a “moderator” scripted a set of questions to be asked of each candidate and then asked them one-on-one for an equal set amount of time. They could then spotlight highlight answer moments in a same-screen final comparison segment. Glaring inaccuracies might also be pointed out during this segment.
If presidential “debates” were formatted like that, the American people would be better educated on the positions each candidate holds. Additionally, the networks could – I’m not saying they are bright enough to do so, but they could – examine and investigate each candidate's campaign planks to illustrate or expose any infidelity or fealty to their positions.
Regardless, the present political “debate” format is useless and only serves to further divide an already fractured nation. If either of the political parties gave a damn, this format would change.
If someone could give Rona McDaniel that message after she’s finished with lunch at Spago that would be great.
When we come back, this morning’s segment on America’s Third Watch…
Take Back Your Mind
Think For Yourself
Support Independent Journalism
Why Is It We Don’t Learn From These Things?